And the Intent that Counts

Transcription

1 The Intended Object of a 4 th Amendment Seizure And the Intent that Counts Tim Miller Subject Matter Expert for Use of Force Legal Division Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Chapel Crossing Road Glynco, Georgia, tim.miller@dhs.gov

2 The 4 th Amendment The right of the people to be secure in their persons against unreasonable seizures Seizure? It s defined as: A governmental termination of movement by a means intentionally applied. Requires a willful act, not an unknowing one. Brower v. Co. of Inyo (1989). Significance? The seizure must be objectively reasonable. Graham v. Connor (1989).

3 Plaintiff v. Defendant Focus on when that plaintiff gets Fourth Amendment protection

4 The Intent to Seize is Clear

5 Plaintiff v. Defendant Seized? Objectively Reasonable? Reasonable in fact? t liable Law Clearly Established? Violation

6 Intent to Seize

7 Plaintiff v. Defendant Seized? Other Tort? Objectively Reasonable? Reasonable In Fact? t Liable Law Clearly Established? Violation

8 Hostages and By-Standers Are t Seized

9 Hostage Shot by Errant Bullet Estate of Joshua Sawicki v. O Connell J P Guard Rail

10 Plaintiff v. Defendant Seized? Other Tort? Objectively Reasonable? Reasonable In Fact? t Liable Law Clearly Established? Violation

11 An unintended person can be the intended An unintended person can be the intended object of a Fourth Amendment seizure Brower v. Co. of Inyo. These are cases of mistaken identity. For example, the officer seizes Mr. A, believing he s Mr. B.

12 A Case of Mistaken Identity Catlin v. DuPage Co. Major Crimes Task Force Uh, Ooh! Red Roof Inn C Police

13 Plaintiff v. Defendant Seized? Other Tort? Objectively Reasonable? Reasonable In Fact? t Liable Law Clearly Established? Violation

14 Sum up, a little The Brower test works when there is an intended object of a seizure. Case of mistaken identity? An unintended person can be the intended object of a seizure What about ambiguous cases, where the officer s intent is uncertain? E.g., Plaintiff says he was the intended object of a seizure, and the officer says no he wasn t. The Supreme Court said use the reasonable person test. Brendlin v. California (2007).

15 Reasonable Person Test Brendlin v. California (2007). A person is seized if a reasonable person in the position of the person confronted would not feel free to leave. Other Factors? I can t leave Would he feel subject to some government suspicion? If he tried to leave, would the officer surely object? How can I get around this?

16 There are Two Tests A governmental termination of movement by a means intentionally applied. Requires a willful act, not an unknowing one. Brower v. Co. of Inyo (1989). Subjective Test A person is seized if a reasonable person in the position of the person confronted would not feel free to leave. Willfulness is no invitation to look at the subjective intent of the officer. Brendlin v. California (2007) Objective Test

17 And, The Test Matters Rodriguez v. Passinault (6 th Cir 2011) By shooting at the driver of the moving truck, the officer intended to stop the vehicle, which effectively seized everyone inside. Building M R Building

18 But if Rebecca was seized, why wasn t Joshua? Joshua Rebecca J P Guard Rail Building M R Building

19 Plaintiff v. Defendant Seized? Objectively Reasonable? Reasonable In Fact? t Liable Law Clearly Established? Violation

20 The Intent that Counts Is the Intent That Is Objectively Manifested Towards the Person Confronted. Brendlin v. California.

21 Weapons Confusion Case Henry v. Purnell (2007) H Both parties stipulate that Officer Purnell intended to draw his Taser, not his Glock handgun. Officer Purnell argues, I didn t terminate Henry s movement by a means I intended. P Sixth Circuit holds that Purnell intended to set in motion a means to stop Henry; the specific means you intended is irrelevant. Brower v. Co. Inyo Henry s Truck The intent that counts is the intent that Purnell objectively manifested. Brendlin v. California.

22 The Reasonable Person Test The intent ( in who is the intended object of a seizure) is determined by a reasonable person? Would a reasonable person in the position of the plaintiff believe that officer s [use of force] was directed towards him for purposes of terminating his movement.

23 Plaintiff v. Defendant Seized? Objectively Reasonable? Reasonable In Fact? t Liable Law Clearly Established? Violation

24 Sum up In every case discussed so far, there has been at least one intended object of a seizure. What if the officer did not intend to stop anyone?

25 A Totally Unintended Seizure? Garner v. Bd. Of Police Commissioners (8 th Cir. 2011) I did not intend to seize anyone. I was suffering from a hypoglycemic reaction. Brower test. The district court used the reasonable person test. Brendlin. Convenience Store The 8 th Circuit said that the law was not clearly established in 2007 that a LEO could effect a seizure without intending to do so.

26 Plaintiff v. Defendant Seized? Objectively Reasonable? Reasonable In Fact? t Liable Law Clearly Established? Violation

27 Conclusions The officer must willfully commit an act. The word, willful is no invitation to look at the subjective intent. That act must cause the plaintiff to submit to government control. Would a reasonable person believe that the officer s act [use of force] was directed towards him for purposes of terminating his movement? If so, and he submits to governmental control, he s seized.